Columnists are nervous of looking silly. It was with hesitation that in August 2004, writing on this page after a Times poll had reported vast economic confidence among the public, I suggested that “a darker melody in a minor key is faintly audible beneath the oom-pah-pah of economic optimism: a persistent, puzzled, inquisitive counterpoint.

“Why? Why does there seem to be all this money sloshing around?..” “...Maybe the growing wealth so many of us feel... simply because each of us is prepared every year to set a higher valuation on our fellow citizens' houses, is not a chimera. But I cannot but share... this nagging feeling that a nation of homeowners energetically bidding up the value of each other's property, borrowing on the basis of the inflating figures, then spending the money in hypermarkets every weekend... is somehow riding for a fall.” I wondered if I was missing something, but wrote it anyway; was comprehensively demolished by fellow columnists; and, with a shrug of the shoulders, let the subject drop.

Well, here goes again. You'll laugh at what follows. It may sound absurd. But if ever we had reason to reflect that today's realities are yesterday's unlikelihoods, we have it this autumn. So consider this: I think there's a fair chance that, before the next general election, Gordon Brown will try to bounce the opposition parties into some form of national government.

He may not call it that, it may fall short of a fully fledged “Government of National Unity” and, in a series of incremental steps, he may edge rather than spring the change upon us. But the stated aim will be no different from what lay behind the creation of an all-party War Cabinet under Winston Churchill's chairmanship in 1940: to end the distraction of political knockabout during a crisis, and to unite senior people from all parties behind a national effort.

Mr Brown's real intention will be less worthy: to silence critics and bind political rivals into policies that they will not subsequently be able to criticise; to pre-empt their blaming him if things go wrong; to allow himself to slur those who voice disagreement in Parliament and the media as “unpatriotic”; to imply that any challenge to his own leadership is irresponsible; to stifle discussion of his own past role in the “Age of Irresponsibility”; and to go into the next election having effectively nobbled the opposition parties.

Imaginable? You might at least agree that, whether good or bad for the nation as a whole, from the point of view of a Labour Prime Minister whose party faces the possibility of landslide electoral defeat, such a climate of consensus - if it could be achieved - would offer shorter-term benefits of a self-interested sort.

You might remember, too, that the image (if not the reality) of “big tent” politics has long attracted Mr Brown. Call this strategy or call it tactics, but such moves were among the earliest surprises he pulled from the hat on becoming Prime Minister. He lured Tories over to assist - in one case even join - his administration; he tried it on with Shirley Williams, Paddy Ashdown and Sir Menzies Campell. He brought in outsiders from industry and the military. Mr Brown's instinct to neutralise opposition by creating an impression of consensus around himself is well established.

And for him the downside is surely low. The risk that invitations might be spurned is beautifully manageable. The very act of offering a ceasefire would impress large parts of the British population, which has never cared much for party politics. Rebuffed, Labour could make a virtue of it. An air of injured goodwill - their olive branch rejected - might be spun to electoral advantage.

So, if you are with me on the potential attractions for Mr Brown of at least offering a party-political ceasefire, let's proceed to what is probably the best argument for doubt: his own pride.

He dislikes David Cameron, detests George Osborne, hates and distrusts all Tories on principle, finds Liberal Democrats idiotic and irritating, and will not have forgotten being called “Mr Bean” and a “twitching corpse” by the Liberal Democrat Treasury Spokesman, Vince Cable. Wouldn't it then be personally humiliating to ask for their help? It would. It would stick in his throat. Mr Brown is not a man to forget an injury, as many colleagues will testify. And his suspicion of Tories runs deep and will never change. But do not overlook another truth about this man: Mr Brown is a bully who knows how to back down. The pride of bullies is a malleable thing.

We've just seen a spectacular example of this. Labour voices wiffling about the Prime Minister and Peter Mandelson “going back a long way”, being former friends, enjoying a “complicated” relationship, and being ready now to bury the hatchet to save their grand old party” miss the point. Mr Mandelson wanted a job. Mr Brown was desperate to save the job he had. Needs must. I do not believe Mr Brown now trusts or likes his former betrayer, or ever could.

But in one bound this alliance has nobbled the Blairites. I've heard the objection that Tony Blair himself sanctioned the move. But what else could he have done? Tried to block it? Unless (or until) Mr Mandelson betrays Mr Brown a second time, most Blairites are now gagged.

So Mr Brown's first big move to consolidate a precarious position has succeeded. He has dragged key Labour enemies into his tent. The party cannot easily now turn against him.

But the electorate can. So now for the next move: to nobble the Opposition. If Mr Brown can confect a grin and a handshake with Mr Mandelson, he can do it with anyone - and certainly with Mr Cameron or Nick Clegg.

How? The options are various. Invite Mr Cable and/or Mr Osborne to attend Cabinet discussion on the economy? Set up, outside Cabinet, a council to include them? Invite them into Mr Brown's new National Economic Council? Institutionalise regular meetings with Mr Clegg and/or Mr Cameron?

Any or all of these ruses may be considered; and don't entirely rule out proposals for a proper war-type national government. A Parliamentary Labour Party that will swallow Mr Mandelson must be persuadable.

Messrs Cameron, Clegg, Osborne and Dr Cable should view this with extreme wariness. The danger is huge. Say “yes” and they may be sucked in to complicity in failure to rescue economic growth. Say “no” and they may be blamed for aggravating the failure.

I think they would have to say “yes”, but attach a condition that Mr Brown could never accept but which voters might not think unreasonable. The formation of a national government in 1940 was made possible only by the resignation of Neville Chamberlain. Opposition co-operation in any national administration to handle this economic emergency should depend upon the replacement of Mr Brown by a senior Labour colleague. There might be merit in making that clear before he even tries his tricks.

Times Recommends

• How did she get the insurance?
• Protesting against Charles? Bonkers
• Will a degree help an anxious patient?